Boxing vrs Wrestling

Compare the argument against boxing as presented in a BBC report of a Catholic journal's article^[1] to a rebuttal posted on some boxing website.^[2] I hesitate to call it a "rebuttal," because it is rather pathetic. The presented argument basically boils down to "Yes, people die, yes everything you said about it is true, but unlike the gladiators, they choose it, so its okay." As if every gladiator was 100 percent forced to become one, as if none of them came to enjoy the gruesome "sport" they "played." As if no boxer has ever felt pressured to accept a match, to enter the ring.

But the choice really is nearly a side point here. For what sort of "sport" is it when at best one side takes what is likely permanent injury? Reading this drove home with me the differences between boxing and wrestling. It is not that I did not know the differences before, but it confirmed my thoughts. For in both you strive to physically dominate, physically beat, and, to differing extents, to hurt the other to make him submit. The difference is entirely in that "to differing extents." For in wrestling, the permanent injury is guarded against, usually comes as an error on the part of the opponent, and often even then only if accompanied by an error on the part of the referee. Boxers and boxing on the other hand are known for the brain damage the sustain, the phenomena of being "Punch Drunk." Of being like Rocky, so damaged even in victory as to become effectively retarded.

While less true here, this is especially true in the Asian matches, which have fewer restrictions and greater lethality than the American version, so much so that it qualifies with the martial arts. The point of boxing is to damage the opponent, whereas the point of wresting is to bring him to submission, by pain if your skill and strength is insufficient, but without damaging him.